Friggin trial lawyers...

Jarod said:
The vast majority of lawyers are not TRIAL LAWYERS...
Click to expand...
Well of course not, lawyers do far more with contracts, divorce and corporate business.

Jarod said:
and the vast majority of the TRIAL LAWYERS do not do MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES!
Click to expand...
If that really is true, then why are you so worried about any legislation related to capping it? I mean by your own admission it should barely affect you and other trial lawyers...
In reality trial lawyers have spent an unbelievable shitload trying to stop any tort reform related to healthcare, again NUMBER ONE GROUP DONOR to Dems are trial lawyers.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Well of course not, lawyers do far more with contracts, divorce and corporate business.


If that really is true, then why are you so worried about any legislation related to capping it? I mean by your own admission it should barely affect you and other trial lawyers...
In reality trial lawyers have spent an unbelievable shitload trying to stop any tort reform related to healthcare, again NUMBER ONE GROUP DONOR to Dems are trial lawyers.
Click to expand...

Im not personally worried, but capping it would not help with the frivilous cases, caps would only hurt the most deserving of cases!
 
NigelTufnel said:
Learn to read. First, I didn't say that tort reform would not reduce medical malpractice insurance rates. I said it would not reduce healthcare costs that much. My statement is backed up by the most recent analysis from the CBO.
By the way, what has happened to healthcare costs in Texas since tort reform was adopted? Oh, right. Costs have continued to escalate unabated.
Welcome back.
Click to expand...
I read fine, I was assuming you would pick up on the obvious link from one to the other. ANY expense in ANY business is going to boost costs to the END USER and inversely with less expenses.
It's important to remember that a lot of business (and not just in healthcare specifically) are national, so if a couple states do tort reform while the rest don't, then overall costs are still going to increase. They would have increased MORE without that reform.
I mean what the fuck is your argument, that having HIGHER costs doesn't make a difference to the price of a final good or service? This is essentially what you are arguing.
 
Caps are the dumbist of ideas out there, I am not against all tort reform, but I am against caps.
 
Jarod said:
Im not personally worried, but capping it would not help with the frivilous cases
Click to expand...
Capping does help the frivolous cases even now because a trial lawyer would want to be damn sure they have a good case as the return on their cost is not so high that they can gamble on very unlikely to win (which frivolous usually falls under) cases.

Jarod said:
, caps would only hurt the most deserving of cases!
Click to expand...
Well that depends on the size of the cap, to be honest, I find Texas's cap is too low at $250,000 and should increase. The caps purpose should be to stop the ridiculous awards where juries award tens or hundreds of millions.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Capping does help the frivolous cases even now because a trial lawyer would want to be damn sure they have a good case as the return on their cost is not so high that they can gamble on very unlikely to win (which frivolous usually falls under) cases.


Well that depends on the size of the cap, to be honest, I find Texas's cap is too low at $250,000 and should increase. The caps purpose should be to stop the ridiculous awards where juries award tens or hundreds of millions.
Click to expand...

Most contengency fee attorneys who take frivilous cases on a regular bases go out of business. I know one with that problem today!
 
Jarod said:
Caps are the dumbist of ideas out there, I am not against all tort reform, but I am against caps.
Click to expand...

I don't like much of any government regulation, but this is not a free market bound by the usual rules with competitive checks and balances. It is the force of a court via a jury or judge that has the power to award amounts far in excess of what a person's damages could be.

I mean take a look at a single excessive case where a jury awards hundreds of millions, how would you GUARANTEE to limit that if not for caps?
 
Jarod said:
Most contengency fee attorneys who take frivilous cases on a regular bases go out of business. I know one with that problem today!
Click to expand...
That's good but it obviously isn't enough as they do still exist and there are juries who will award frivolous cases. With a cap, a lawyer has to be that much more certain that his case is plausible and not frivolous. It's not perfect.
Do you have a different idea?
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO....

you are simply bitter about being proclaimed a fool in the game.

1) Nigel makes a CLAIM about defense lawyers and corporate lawyers... with nothing to back it up.... so how is that pwning?

2) Nigel doesn't see how it is possible to separate lobbyists who are lawyers from 'lawyers'. Quite frankly... this is just Nigel pwning himself. If someone is a registered lobbyist... then you don't count them... regardless of whether they are a lawyer or not. It is quite simple to exclude them.

3) Do explain how he pwned me here?
Click to expand...


Hoopster is double PWNED!

Ouchie!! :eek:
 
KingCondanomation said:
I don't like much of any government regulation, but this is not a free market bound by the usual rules with competitive checks and balances. It is the force of a court via a jury or judge that has the power to award amounts far in excess of what a person's damages could be.

I mean take a look at a single excessive case where a jury awards hundreds of millions, how would you GUARANTEE to limit that if not for caps?
Click to expand...

At least in Florida, and I know most places.... It is within the judges descretion to reduce an award.
 
Jarod said:
At least in Florida, and I know most places.... It is within the judges descretion to reduce an award.
Click to expand...
You trust every judge to do so? That only helps when the judge is grounded, but not all of them will be though I think most are.
The problem is that now trial lawyers can often pick their judges (to a degree), especially when they are suing some national company with presence in all or most states; there is some county or area in Illinois where an obscene amount of lawsuits are filed by trial lawyers with far more compared to anywhere else in the nation.
Why? Because in this day and age they have stats on which judges and juries are most likely to award the plaintiff and with the highest damages.
 
KingCondanomation said:
You trust every judge to do so? That only helps when the judge is grounded, but not all of them will be though I think most are.
The problem is that now trial lawyers can often pick their judges (to a degree), especially when they are suing some national company with presence in all or most states; there is some county or area in Illinois where an obscene amount of lawsuits are filed by trial lawyers with far more compared to anywhere else in the nation.
Why? Because in this day and age they have stats on which judges and juries are most likely to award the plaintiff and with the highest damages.
Click to expand...

No, but I dont trust our justice system to always be perfect. But I do trust it to average out to do justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top